Casual question

[lucaspa]

Well, thank you? But I am thinking alternatives to mainstream here. I am familiar with what you say about the mass of the photon from the mainstream perspective.

 

This has nothing to do with "the mainstream perspective"! This is DATA. Observation. That observation is independent of the theory it is testing. Photons don't have mass whether General Relativity is true or not. You seem to be under the impression that data changes when we change theories. NO! Objects accelerate under the force of gravity on earth at 32 ft/sec^2 under Newton's theory of gravity and Einstein's. They must accelerate at that rate under your theory, too.

 

I would like to restate that the mainstream answers to the cause of mass and gravity are not connected, and they deal with theories that aren’t compatible.

 

First, please explain what you think are the "mainstream answers to the cause of mass and gravity". Then explain how they are not "compatible".

 

The source of mass in our universe according to Higgs theory is a very massive particle that decays into fundamental particles that we recognize (over simplified but I am not teaching you about HT, just acknowledging it).

 

This isn't "Higgs theory" but instead is the Standard Model of particles. What you are talking about is how particles get mass in guage theory! First you need to understand and be correct about the current theories before you can even start on alternatives. Otherwise your "alternatives" are nothing more than strawmen.

 

If we can’t find the Higgs mechanism, then does that make us rethink the source of mass?

 

The LHC is trying to find the "Higgs particle". And yes, if they can't find it it will cause a rethink. But your "anticipation" can already be tested against known data, and it fails that test.

 

Do you even consider it possible that there is a realm where physical phenomena occur that affect the lowest level that we can detect?

 

ROFL! That has been the history of physics! Atoms that we can't detect that cause the behavior of gasses that we can. Electrons we can't detect that cause the behavior of electricity. Quarks that cause the behavior of protons and electrons, and now strings and 'branes.

 

Listen carefully: It's not that I am rejecting your idea because it is new, but because data we already have falsifies it! IOW, I am treating it just like any other scientific theory, including my own. I regularly falsify my own theories about stem cells and tissue regeneration. I've just falsified my theory that bone regeneration by adult stem cells in a bone defect will be by endochondral ossification. At the one week time point, where I should have seen cartilage (if my theory was correct), I didn't find any. Theory falsified.

 

And if there was such a level do you consider that it would negate much of what we think we know.

 

It won't negate the data we have. It can't.

I understand why we are not able to communicate, and I don’t like it any more than you do.

 

I understand why. You don't want your "theory" to be wrong. You have become emotionally involved with it. You can't do that if you really want to do science. As you said, "science is tentative", including your theory. You don't consider your own theory to be tentative, just other people's. So instead of admitting it's falsified, or even working at it to the point where you can test it yourself against known data, you make up these excuses. I'm truly sorry for that, but it's your problem and you'll have to deal with it.

 

Let me ask you if you think that the physical picture that I have described (we are both wasting each other’s time if you have no clue what I mean by the physical picture) can be quantified, since that is what you are asking for? What do you think the amount of an energy quantum is in the realm that I am trying to discuss?

 

Of course it can be quantified. It must to be of any use. As I told you, we already know what an energy quantum must be. But for you, you can at least get a series of possible values by calculating what the quantum has to be for 1) a mass to have an acceleration of 32 ft/sec^2 on earth, 2) the electron to orbit the proton in a hydrogen atom, 3) a photon to deviate around the sun to displace the stars behind it to the observed positions. If your theory won't account for those effects we observe, it's worthless, no matter how much you think it unites mass and gravity.

 

If you deal with me by giving me mainstream answers, you are happy, you are satisfied because you have given me the chance of say, “OMG, I didn’t know what the mainstream says about mass and gravity, forget all my ideas”.

 

You mistake "mainstream ideas" for data! You must deal with the observations that people have already made. For instance, Planck quantized energy. If you are going to quantize it further (and 10-34 joules is very small, then multiples of that new quanta are going to have to equal Planck's figures. Because that is the observation.

 

We cannot yet detect any such level of order so either I drop it in the face of your flat rejection from a mainstream perspective that I am already well aware of, or you deal with ideas that suggest a flawed mainstream.

 

Or we realize you are making ad hoc hypotheses to avoid falsification. Remember, you said photons must have mass. Well, how much mass do they have to have to deflect around the sun the way Einstein saw? Is that mass within the detectable limits of experiments to detect mass in a photon? I'm saying "yes" because those detectable limits are so very low that we can detect masses well below that of a neutrino.

 

But you won't even do the math to find out, just make character attacks that I will only accept the "mainstream". Frack no! I'm testing your theory just like the "mainstream" was tested. It's just that your theory doesn't survive testing.

 

If you go your way, you have to find the Higgs or go fish, and you have to ignore the shortcomings of GR and spacetime.

 

No, I don't. Nor do I. It's not a question of accept GR or take your theory. I can find shortcomings in both.

 

I am probably going to look for ideas of how it is possible to couple mass and gravity instead of accepting that a mathematical construct can affect the physical universe.

 

Unless your idea can be put into mathematics so that we can see if it yields the observations we already have (and makes predictions of observations we should only see if your idea is correct), then your "possible" is worthless. There are literally millions of ways we can imagine to "couple mass and gravity". What matters is testing those to see if they are correct or not. You don't care about that part. You only want to imagine something and then declare it correct and avoid testing.

 

The scientific method has to start with ideas. If the ideas are pertinent to a completely different set of circumstances, the known data from the wrong environment doesn’t apply.

 

The second sentence is where you are off the rails. The known data always applies. The data isn't what it is because of the theory we think is correct. Data doesn't change when we change theories.

 

"Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome." SJ Gould, Science and Creationism, ed. by Ashley Montagu, 1984.

 

The data showing photons have no mass doesn't change. The fact of the displacement of light by the sun doesn't change whether we have your theory or Einstein's.

 

What you are doing is a major crime in science: rejecting data because it doesn't match with your theory.

 

Now wait. I don’t think you are telling me that the measures of the Planck regime are measures of a quantum increment of energy. They are measures of various aspects of the smallest realm that can be addressed in science, and that are helpful to use to do the math.

 

No, they are quantum increments of energy. It is actually a physical quantum. That's why they are "constants". All levels of energy we observe are multiples of the Planck constant.

 

Now, you perhaps think there is a level below that and that the Planck constant is a multiple of it, but you can't deny that the Planck constant is a quantum.

 

As was discussed a couple of posts back, no one is disputing equivalence. But if you think that E = mc^2 is explicit enough to addresses a precise unit of energy of which all mass is composed, then again, I missed that in the mainstream science.

 

You disputed equivalence. However, consider the Planck constant. That gives you a precise unit of energy that you can plug into the equation for E and then solve for m. The precies unit of energy of which all mass is composes would be Planck constant divided by the speed of light squared.

 

Here is a case of you wanting to rush away from what I am trying to talk about by not pointing out where I was being contradictory.

 

I don't have unlimited time. I skipped that to get to the falsification.

 

Did you really say, “give me a precise number”? So you think by now, if I have been looking at the ideas for awhile, I should be able to have postulates, hypotheses, valid tests, test results and quantification? I am dragging my feet then.

 

Yes, you are. What is the mass of a photon necessary to give the displacement of seen? What is the mass of a photon necessary to account for changes in motion of an electron when it drops a level inthe atom as it emits that photon. C'mon, you have change in position, the mass of the electron, so you should be able to calculate the mass of the photon in your theory.

 

You have not solved the problems of what causes mass, gravity and the initial expansion of the universe.

 

I don't have to. We are testing this theory to see if it is correct or not. To say this theory is incorrect does not require that I have a correct theory. Why would it?

[brain-in-a-vat]

This has nothing to do with "the mainstream perspective"! This is DATA. Observation. That observation is independent of the theory it is testing. Photons don't have mass whether General Relativity is true or not. You seem to be under the impression that data changes when we change theories. NO! Objects accelerate under the force of gravity on earth at 32 ft/sec^2 under Newton's theory of gravity and Einstein's. They must accelerate at that rate under your theory, too.

That is true. And a good point that my gravitational effects must be the same as what we observe, no getting around that. But I can't see the theory in it yet. Your level headed approach is a big help.

First, please explain what you think are the "mainstream answers to the cause of mass and gravity". Then explain how they are not "compatible".

I'm just thinking of the Higgs Particle and Spacetime and that the popular media has suggested that GR breaks down in the Planck regime.

This isn't "Higgs theory" but instead is the Standard Model of particles. What you are talking about is how particles get mass in guage theory! First you need to understand and be correct about the current theories before you can even start on alternatives. Otherwise your "alternatives" are nothing more than strawmen.

Thank you for that input. I'll get the Wiki version of quage theory for a start at getting more familiar, and I wanted talk like this from the start as I think about the ideas. I'm not selling anything, have no theory though by your definition you can call it that but I don't.

The LHC is trying to find the "Higgs particle". And yes, if they can't find it it will cause a rethink. But your "anticipation" can already be tested against known data, and it fails that test.

Deep in my pea brain there is something about the gravity aether business and how the aether is connected in a process that accounts for both mass and gravity. It is nothing at this point except a subject for conversation. I don't make it out to be more.

ROFL! That has been the history of physics! Atoms that we can't detect that cause the behavior of gasses that we can. Electrons we can't detect that cause the behavior of electricity. Quarks that cause the behavior of protons and electrons, and now strings and 'branes.

When you put it that way I understand what you mean.

Listen carefully: It's not that I am rejecting your idea because it is new, but because data we already have falsifies it! IOW, I am treating it just like any other scientific theory, including my own. I regularly falsify my own theories about stem cells and tissue regeneration. I've just falsified my theory that bone regeneration by adult stem cells in a bone defect will be by endochondral ossification. At the one week time point, where I should have seen cartilage (if my theory was correct), I didn't find any. Theory falsified.

You are right, it is hard to let it go. I see your point about having a lot of work to do to make it make any sense.

It won't negate the data we have. It can't.

 

 

I understand why. You don't want your "theory" to be wrong. You have become emotionally involved with it. You can't do that if you really want to do science. As you said, "science is tentative", including your theory. You don't consider your own theory to be tentative, just other people's. So instead of admitting it's falsified, or even working at it to the point where you can test it yourself against known data, you make up these excuses. I'm truly sorry for that, but it's your problem and you'll have to deal with it.

I agree that an alternative theory has to comply with the facts, though I still can't look at my ideas as theory. This you will agree with; my ideas are far from being formalized enough to be called theory. I'm repeating myself but this is the kind of converstation I came here for. Our exchange has not been the norm in my experience, thanks.

Of course it can be quantified. It must to be of any use. As I told you, we already know what an energy quantum must be. But for you, you can at least get a series of possible values by calculating what the quantum has to be for 1) a mass to have an acceleration of 32 ft/sec^2 on earth, 2) the electron to orbit the proton in a hydrogen atom, 3) a photon to deviate around the sun to displace the stars behind it to the observed positions. If your theory won't account for those effects we observe, it's worthless, no matter how much you think it unites mass and gravity.

 

You mistake "mainstream ideas" for data! You must deal with the observations that people have already made. For instance, Planck quantized energy. If you are going to quantize it further (and 10-34 joules is very small, then multiples of that new quanta are going to have to equal Planck's figures. Because that is the observation.

 

 

 

Or we realize you are making ad hoc hypotheses to avoid falsification. Remember, you said photons must have mass. Well, how much mass do they have to have to deflect around the sun the way Einstein saw? Is that mass within the detectable limits of experiments to detect mass in a photon? I'm saying "yes" because those detectable limits are so very low that we can detect masses well below that of a neutrino.

 

Again, good points. Maybe my biggest learning here is get a better formalization of the key ideas. I know too that I should stop talking about my desire to have a single scenario that is internally consistent and that has a common cause for mass, gravity and initial expansion. That thinking can only lead to trouble if it is talked about in the wrong forum. I guess there is too much philosophy there and no science unless we let "raw" ideas qualify until discussed, like we have here.

 

 

But you won't even do the math to find out, just make character attacks that I will only accept the "mainstream". Frack no! I'm testing your theory just like the "mainstream" was tested. It's just that your theory doesn't survive testing.

 

No, I don't. Nor do I. It's not a question of accept GR or take your theory. I can find shortcomings in both.

 

Unless your idea can be put into mathematics so that we can see if it yields the observations we already have (and makes predictions of observations we should only see if your idea is correct), then your "possible" is worthless. There are literally millions of ways we can imagine to "couple mass and gravity". What matters is testing those to see if they are correct or not. You don't care about that part. You only want to imagine something and then declare it correct and avoid testing.

 

The second sentence is where you are off the rails. The known data always applies. The data isn't what it is because of the theory we think is correct. Data doesn't change when we change theories.

 

"Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome." SJ Gould, Science and Creationism, ed. by Ashley Montagu, 1984.

 

The data showing photons have no mass doesn't change. The fact of the displacement of light by the sun doesn't change whether we have your theory or Einstein's.

 

What you are doing is a major crime in science: rejecting data because it doesn't match with your theory.

 

 

 

No, they are quantum increments of energy. It is actually a physical quantum. That's why they are "constants". All levels of energy we observe are multiples of the Planck constant.

 

Now, you perhaps think there is a level below that and that the Planck constant is a multiple of it, but you can't deny that the Planck constant is a quantum.

 

 

 

You disputed equivalence. However, consider the Planck constant. That gives you a precise unit of energy that you can plug into the equation for E and then solve for m. The precies unit of energy of which all mass is composes would be Planck constant divided by the speed of light squared.

 

 

 

I don't have unlimited time. I skipped that to get to the falsification.

 

 

 

Yes, you are. What is the mass of a photon necessary to give the displacement of seen? What is the mass of a photon necessary to account for changes in motion of an electron when it drops a level inthe atom as it emits that photon. C'mon, you have change in position, the mass of the electron, so you should be able to calculate the mass of the photon in your theory.

 

 

 

I don't have to. We are testing this theory to see if it is correct or not. To say this theory is incorrect does not require that I have a correct theory. Why would it?

 

All good points. Forgive me for the character attack if that is how you looked at it. From what I take away from this thread, I know that I am the one with the learning to do if I want to discuss this any further here.

 

Well, back to the drawing board .

[brain-in-a-vat]

Mainstream or not, experimental evidence is still true.

 

Your link, we are discussing your idea not that one...

I didn’t see your reply until I was reviewing what has been contributed by this community so I could go back to the drawing board on my Quantum Wave Cosmology (QWC) and update the ideas based on that input.

 

I gave you that link and asked you to look at it because I wanted to leave the door open for you to talk with me about it. Here is what I found notable that pertained to our brief discussion about photon mass: The article spoke of “Y” value. “Y” value is the difference between Newtonian gravity and Spacetime in regard to the predicted and observed deflection of photons as they pass the sun from distant stars. Spacetime has a "Y" value of 1 and Newtonian has a "Y" value of 0.

 

We, or at least I had mentioned that in QWC (my ideas about cosmology) the photon has a tiny mass, accounting for how it would be deflected by the sun if spacetime wasn’t doing it.I mentioned that I was interested in knowing what mass the photon would have to have to match the deflection observed during the eclipse, and that I had asked for help in calculation that tiny mass without any success. One interesting point about the link I gave you is that they had to have calculated that Newtonian mass in order to establish the “Y” scales since the “Y” value is determined by the difference between Newtonian and Spacetime predictions. All that I would have to do is calculate the mass using QWC gravity.

 

You mentioned that if mass and gravity were caused by the ideas of QWC, then calculated deflection due to QWC gravity would have to match the predicted and observed deflection due to spacetime since spacetime and the real measurements were the same. At the same time I pointed out that the environment causing the effect that we observe is different in QWC than in either Newtonian or Spacetime gravity, but I agreed that the predictions of QWC gravity would have to match the observed results.

 

Just to mention how QWC gravity differs from Spacetime and Newtonian, QWC gravity is imprinted in the aether by constantly repeating quantum waves that are emanated by mass. The waves have a net negative energy relative to the average energy density of the universe while mass always has a net positive energy density relative to the average energy density of the universe. The average energy density of the universe is a huge positive figure meaning that the universe is composed of energy. Since energy cannot be created or destroyed in QWC (and mainstreams science), all of the energy has always existed, i.e. there was no “beginning” of energy, only beginnings of arenas where the perfect symmetry between negative and positive energy has a common history originating from a big bang type of event.

 

That simply means that the positive energy of a single big crunch and the negative energy of the aether surrounding that big crunch before the burst of a crunch into expansion has a net zero deviation from the average energy density of the universe. The mass of a crunch and burst has positive energy and the negative energy of the aether surrounding the crunch and burst exactly off sets the positive energy of the crunch and burst.

 

The imprinted history that mass leaves in the aether is caused by the constant emanations of negative energy from the mass into the aether. Each quantum wave and the net of all of the single tiny quantum waves from within mass expand infinitely as they travel spherically away from their mass. Any point in space has energy density determined by the emanations of mass from across the universe if their emanations have expanded sufficiently to reach that point.

 

Mass moves through the aether in the path of lowest energy density if you look at it from the perspective that mass is high energy density and the emanations from mass are low energy density. The larger mass causes a lower energy density emanation and a lower density imprint on the aether.

 

Applying QWC gravity to the photon, we agree, would have to match spacetime gravity instead of Newtonian gravity. Here are some considerations: The QWC gravity emanations from mass supposedly travel away from mass at the speed of light relative to the reference frame of the mass. It gets complicated for me because photons are travelling at the speed of light relative to the observer in any reference frame (special relativity). Gravity emanating at the speed of light from a photon travelling at the speed of light means that the gravity from the photon is cancelled in the direction that the photon is travelling, leaving the effect of the suns gravity on the photon to be felt by the photon, but the effect of the photons gravity would not be felt by the sun until the photon reached and passed the sun.

 

I have to figure out how to express that mathematically in order to make a prediction of what the deflection would be of a photon passing the sun from a distant star in terms of QWC gravity. I haven’t been able to figure it out mathematically yet.

 

One more point about the photon’s mass in QWC. The photon emitted from an electron would have to be different from the quantum waves emitted from mass. We are not talking about photons being the same as quantum waves or being emitted in the same way that quantum waves are emanated from mass. The quantum waves have no mass, only a quantum or less of energy expanding spherically from mass to create the aether.

 

But on the other hand, when a photon is emitted, there is a discrete amount of energy contained in the photon and that energy is equivalent to the energy lost by the electron as the electron changes position in the orbital.

 

So we have a photon emitted from an electron at the speed of light. In QWC, the energy of that photon consists of energy in quantum increments and the number of quantum increments corresponds with the photon’s energy, i.e. the photon is an organized particle of mass within which quantum action is taking place constantly every quantum period (every instant) as the photon travels at the speed of light relative to any observer in any frame.

 

How do I calculate the mass of that photon under those conditions? Knowing the mass of photons of differing energies would certainly help with the task of quantifying the amount of energy in a QWC energy quantum. Hence, back to the drawing board.

[brain-in-a-vat]

This thread got off to a bad start because in the OP I was checking to see if I would be allowed to post speculative ideas, and after several responses, and several examples of what I meant by speculative ideas, the discussion just evolved. I had intended to start from the beginning, offer the ideas in a step by step fashion, and ask for input to get rid of ideas that were wrong and especially that weren’t even wrong.

 

Skeptic at first seemed interested and so I posted more but never started with step one. A cosmology by definition covers a lot of subjects but instead of presenting it step by step I ended up on some of the more exotic ideas like photon mass without ever giving what I call reasonable and responsible explanations for the very earliest steps of speculation.

 

Well photon mass seemed to be the idea that disturbed people and I got into a couple of discussions about that before I accidentally attached someone’s character. It was not intentional and since I have been building QWC with input from several forums and many threads over a period of years I hate to leave the impression that I would be the one to initiate character attacks. Over thousands of posts until this thread, I was always the one who’s character was attacked and so for me to initiate an attack is completely out of character.

 

Knowing how quickly character attacks can bring a thread down, I immediately closed out the final response on photon mass and said I thought everyone had offered good points, and that I should go back to the drawing board.

 

I would like to start a new thread and go more to the beginning of how QWC has been put together, discussion the early steps, get feedback as I go. That, to me, is going back to the drawing board and starting from the beginning. I promise never to attack anyone’s character intentionally. Would that be OK with the moderators?